OWUSU AFRIYIE AND OTHERS vs. TETE AND ANOTHER [1964]DLSC1940

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1940

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

ACOLATSE J.

HEWARD-MILLS JNR. (WITH HIM ARTHUR) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

V. OWUSU (WITH HIM N. Y. B. ADADE AND OSEI) FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1964]DLSC1940
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >OWUSU AFRIYIE AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; vs. <o:p></o:p>TETE AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 90<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29 FEBRUARY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

HEWARD-MILLS, JNR. (WITH HIM ARTHUR) FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

V. OWUSU (WITH HIM N. Y. B. ADADE AND OSEI) FOR
THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN AND BLAY JJ.S.C. AND ACOLATSE
J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>These
cross-appeals came from the High Court, Kumasi, presided over by Djabanor J. in
a case in which the plaintiffs claimed against the defendants a declaration of
title to a large tract of land situate and lying at Kyempo-Subeng in
Ashanti-Akim. They also claimed £G2,000 damages for trespass and an order for
possession and perpetual injunction. For the purpose of convenience the parties
will be referred to in this judgment as plaintiffs and defendants simply. The
plaintiffs’ case in the court below was that they as members of a farmers’
syndicate purchased from the stool of Kyempo, now represented by the first
defendant, the tract of land claimed in the writ of summons; that the
transaction of sale and purchase was in accordance with customary law and practice
and was concluded in the year 1925; and that after payment of the purchase
price for the land they were put in possession by the vendor stool and were
peaceably in possession until the year 1952, when the first defendant started
to put other persons including the other defendants on the land. The plaintiffs
further said that the sale of the land was later in the year 1940 confirmed by
a deed of conveyance executed in their favour by the vendor stool and its
overlord, the stool of Kokofu. They said that all attempts to get the
defendants to remove his men from the land having failed they were forced to
institute proceedings against them, the defendants, claiming the reliefs
enumerated in their writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
defendant in his defence denied that the land had been sold to the plaintiffs
by his stool and claimed that the land had always been part of Kyempo stool
lands, portions of which his stool had allocated to both subjects of the stool
and to strangers for many years past. All the defendants pleaded in effect that
they had acquired the land from the first defendant in good faith, and had been
in possession for several years cultivating cocoa and other crops thereon
without any interference or warning from the plaintiffs or their syndicate. They
further contended that even if the plaintiffs’ allegations in their statement
of claim were correct, they the plaintiffs were estopped by conduct from
claiming the land now.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned trial judge after a careful hearing found that the plaintiffs had proved
their title to the land. He therefore awarded them £G1,000 damages as against
the first defendant for trespass. As regards the other defendants, the learned
judge held that even though their plea of estoppel by conduct could not be
sustained, they were however protected by the provisions of the Farm Lands
(Protection) Act, 1962.1 Applying the provisions of that Act, he proceeded to
award compensation to the plaintiffs in respect of the pieces or parcels of
land occupied by each of the defendants. He also ordered all the defendants,
except the first defendant, to attorn tenant to the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>It is
against this judgment that the plaintiffs have appealed to this court on the
following main grounds:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">1. The
learned trial judge was wrong in holding that the provisions of Act 107 were
applicable in this case.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">2. The
learned trial judge was wrong in not making a finding of declaration of title
simpliciter against the defendants-appellants in favour of the
plaintiffs-respondents.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">3. The
learned trial judge was wrong in giving protection under Act 107 to all the
tenants enumerated in exhibit 2 inasmuch as the other tenants apart from second
and fifth defendants-appellants were not parties to the suit.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes"></main>